Planning Bill

That is helpful. On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the size of rail freight interchanges, the Minister did not supply the Committee with empirical data on the significance of sticking to at least 60 hectares as opposed to 30 hectares. It is an important question as to whether or not historically rail freight interchanges have been 60 hectares or above and what the impact would be of taking 30 hectares. If the Minister does not have the information at the moment, perhaps he will write to the noble Lords who are interested in that point. By sticking with 60 hectares, there is not a shadow of a doubt that major rail freight interchanges will be out in the green belt and the countryside and further away from the ultimate point of need. That means that many lorries will be back on the road and shifting goods from the green belt sites into the urban areas, which will defeat part of the purpose of rail freight. It is an important point. It is not a partisan point but one of practical fact as to the significance of this to the strategic objectives of rail freight.